Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to new clause 3A relating to the expiry of the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. This amendment in my name, inserting new clause 3A, introduces—as did the 2001 legislation—a sunset clause to draw an end to this Draconian law. If this Government wants to found itself on the sorts of dodgy principles in this bill, I’m happy for you to do that, and that will be a stain on the heritage of your respective political parties, but do not permanently change our electoral heritage. That’s why I ask for this Parliament’s support for saying that in 2023 this law will be dead.

Now, I do want to reflect on a little bit of history, because, actually, this is the fourth piece of legislation of this form that the Parliament has had before it, and I do want to recollect for the benefit of members opposite the disgraceful events that occurred during the Clark Government under such legislation. I’ll tell you what happened. The leader of The Alliance, Jim Anderton, and the Labour Government that passed that law and insisted that party hopping was the worst sin, which a member should be dismissed from this Parliament for—well, here was the problem: Jim Anderton, the leader of The Alliance, wanted to party hop.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: That’s right.

My colleague David Carter will recall that the so-called electoral integrity legislation imposed by members of the Labour Party and The Alliance—for 16 months, they defended this ridiculous charade. Let me tell you what the charade was: when Jim Anderton was in the Parliament, he was the leader of The Alliance because that was the only way that he could comply with the electoral integrity legislation. But the moment he walked out these doors, he became the leader of the Progressive Party. In fact, it became a bit of a joke that as he walked into the Chamber, he would change from his multicoloured Alliance tie into his rich red tie. And—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just say to the honourable member that he doesn’t have to recount the full history of that part of the electoral legislation. We are talking about a very narrow debate on the member’s amendment to include a sunset clause, and the member should restrict his—

Well, the history is very important, because—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That might be correct, but this clause is not about the history. It’s about a very narrow area.

Mr Chairman, I think it’s very important that we learn from history, because what we learnt from history was that this legislation was a disgrace. Far from meeting its purpose—and I want to draw your attention: do you know what the purpose of this legislation is? To improve respect for Parliament. Well, I say to any member—and to David Carter, who was here with me, and a number of you others were as well—did the last version of this bill increase the respect for Parliament and for our electoral laws? It did not. It made a complete joke of it. There were cartoons galore, and that is why I argue that this bill should have a sunset clause in it.

In fact, it’s fascinating. Can I read you the comments when the 2005 attempt at this legislation was made? The Hon Michael Cullen—remember him? Do you know what he said to the Parliament in 2005?

💬 Hon Members: What did he say?

He said, in 2005, “Perhaps the party-hopping legislation was a necessary evil during the transition from first past the post to MMP.” but that “We did not want it”—this is the Labour Party—“as a permanent piece on New Zealand’s electoral law architecture.” So I say to members opposite: if that’s what Michael Cullen said in 2005, what’s changed? I’d love to hear. I’d love to hear from the Greens.

Do you know what’s most fascinating about the Greens? They will go to the far ends of the world to advocate for human rights and democracy, but they can’t get on their feet in the Parliament and defend it in this very Chamber. They haven’t taken a single call. Not a single call has been taken by the Green Party, who can never again be taken seriously to stand up for democracy and human rights when you cannot get to your feet to defend it in this House of Representatives. So my plea to the Green Party is this: I understand the dirty deal you’ve done. I understand you’ve sold your soul. I understand you’ve gone against the Green youth, your party, and your founders. At least put a sunset clause in it.

Here’s the really extraordinary part: the co-leader of the Greens said to a journalist that they’d vote for the repeal of this legislation. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? “I’m going to vote a bill on to the books. I’m going to vote a law on to the books of New Zealand, but I’m also going to vote it off.” Well, I say to the Green Party: let’s just stop the nonsense.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This is an important piece of legislation, and I want to deal with the amendment in the name of my colleague—I’m not sure this microphone is working, but anyway—

💬 Virginia Andersen: We can hear you.

Oh, that’s good—thank you. I want to deal with the amendment in the name of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, which inserts new section 27A, relating to the protection of the reputation of former members of Parliament. And it says that “After section 27,”—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We are on new clause 3A.

Oh, I’m sorry, Mr Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I would like to pick up on an important point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has just made, because when we talk about a sunset clause, it is correct—as he has pointed out—that a previous incarnation of this bill had a sunset clause for a very good reason. When that previous piece of legislation expired, no one missed it. It was not a matter that attracted much attention at all at the time because the bill had been, frankly, enacted for pretty cynical purposes and the sunset clause at least rid the country of the nuisance. So I want to suggest to you that as we look at this obnoxious piece of legislation that is being inflicted upon the country, at least by inserting a sunset clause, we will be able to limit the damage that it will do.

Now, that should be particularly welcomed by Green Party MPs, because we know that their members are deeply distressed. Their members, who remember that Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald supported strongly the sunset clause because they opposed everything else about the previous legislation, would at least have been able to say, “OK. We did something that was honourable and principled to try to bring such a repugnant travesty of democracy to an early end.”

We should be looking to do the same again here. I would suggest to you that the ideal sunset clause would be one that would take effect the day after the bill receives Royal assent, because at least at that point we would not have had to see any abuse of power, because that, frankly, is what this bill enables the leader of a minor party to inflict on the country. It would not enable an abuse of power to be inflicted on the nation. So a sunset clause is a very important aspect.

Unfortunately, tonight, we have already seen the Government—although they won’t take any calls to explain why—defeat an attempt to defer the commencement of the legislation until after the next general election. So I want to suggest that the sunset clause should at least come into effect by that date.

There are many different options that could be considered. Given the fact that everybody knows that this is simply the little peccadillo of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, it should probably come into effect the day after he leaves the Parliament, because he’s the only one who wants it. Those members of his party who feel subservient to him are having to support him. Labour members, who haven’t taken a call all evening and, clearly, are deeply embarrassed by it, would no doubt welcome being released from it. The Minister in the chair would certainly welcome it, because he is going to have this absolute blemish against his name there for all time, recorded in the annals of posterity that it was the Minister Andrew Little, who is otherwise a decent man, a man with the best of intentions—here he has this stain against his reputation for all time that he was the man who pushed through such an affront to democracy. So I hope that the Minister will take a call and say that yes, he’s had a change of heart and he will support the sunset clause.

I certainly hope that Chlöe Swarbrick, who has sat through much of the debate without taking a single call, will stand up and say, “Yes, we are listening to our members in the Green Party, who are absolutely 100 percent opposed to this bill, who would at least want us to support a sunset clause. Yes, we’ve had a change of heart.” It doesn’t matter that it’s too late.

I say to Chlöe Swarbrick, remember that the Government won’t fall if this legislation is defeated. This is not a confidence measure on which the stability of the Government hinges, and therefore the Green Party members could be true to their principles, could endorse the feelings of their members, and could honour the legacy of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons and so many others by supporting this. Chlöe Swarbrick is shaking her head. She’s not doing that because she disagrees with what I say; she’s simply doing it because she feels so uncomfortable. If she disagreed with what I said, she would stand up and take a call and explain why she has a different view, but she won’t do that. She hasn’t done that all night.

The Minister hasn’t yet explained to us why he’s happy to go down in the annals of history with this appalling travesty against his name. So I ask all members of the committee to support Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, which is a very good one, which will bring about a sunset clause—preferably at the very earliest opportunity—so that at least this can only be a temporary travesty rather than a long-term blight on our democracy.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think that last speech from my good colleague and friend from Hamilton West covered a number of very good points around why you need a sunset clause in a piece of legislation like this. Let’s be honest in this room here tonight: we know what’s happening. You know, this is a deal done between New Zealand First and the Labour Party, and the Greens are having to trudge along behind to form the coalition. That’s what’s happening, isn’t it? Everyone knows that. There’s nothing hidden about that, isn’t it?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: How does this relate to clause 3A?

Yes, and so I’m talking about the sunset clause. That’s exactly what’s happening, isn’t it, Mr Robertson—isn’t it?

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Talk about the clause.

Today—deny it. So Mr Robertson won’t deny it. He’s acquiescing and he’s approving what I’m saying—that this is a deal done between those parties. Everyone knows it. So why won’t the Labour Party vote for a sunset clause? Why do they need to stick to principles at this point of the debate when they’ve given all their principles away to actually put this bill together? Why don’t they actually take time and say “Well, Winston Peters doesn’t have control over us. We don’t have to do everything he says. We can actually say that at some point we need a sunset clause and that we need to be able to say no.” It’ll do Grant Robertson a hell of a lot of good to do that because over the next two years, he’s going to have to stand up to Winston Peters at some point, and this may be a starting point where the Labour and the Green parties could do that. The sunset clause—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the next 3½ minutes, I’d like you to actually speak to the amendment, not to what other parties are doing. It’s a very narrow debate about this new proposed clause 3A.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: That’s the third time he’s had to do that.

Yes, and new clause 3A puts a sunset clause in, which means—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt the member. Can I say to the junior Government whip that I am the Chair and I don’t need a commentary from him about my rulings or interjections about things that I haven’t done.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So the sunset clause is all about saying that in two elections’ time, this legislation does not exist any more. That’s what it is saying. What I am imploring the other parties in this committee to do is—because we need them to vote for this amendment, OK? That’s why I’m asking and arguing to them that they should find it in their conscience, in their heart, and in their integrity to actually vote for this, because it gives one part where they can actually walk out of this room tonight having a little semblance of decency. I know that the discussion will be about this clause, but I need those other parties to vote for this clause so that we can pass it, because at the moment it is being proposed by the minority of this committee. So that is why I’m trying to appeal to the heart of the Labour Party and the Green Party to actually support this sunset clause.

It won’t cost them anything to do that. It will not cost them one bit. Winston Peters will not be offended. He’ll probably respect you more if you do this, because if the parties don’t do it, he’ll keep walking over you.

To the Green Party: it will not stop at this legislation. There’s two more years to go in Government. Guess what’s coming next from Winston Peters and New Zealand First? This is the tip of the iceberg. The Green Party, in every poll we did for 10 years, was at about 12 percent. Now they can’t even register 6 percent. The Green Party will no longer be in existence.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I don’t know what the polls have to do with this new clause 3A.

Well, they’re very important because—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, let’s hear about it.

—it’s convincing members that they need to vote for it. This is not about the New Zealand First Party; this is actually about the demise of the Green movement, because if the Greens don’t start standing up—and this is what I’m saying: the Greens need to vote for this amendment. They need to vote for this amendment for the sake of their party’s integrity going forward. It gives them a chance to put a little bit of a dagger into Winston Peters, and it gives them a chance to actually go back to their membership and say, “Well, hey, we had to stay in Government but we actually did start putting our stake in the ground.” But they won’t, and that is the deficiency of what we’re seeing in the Government.

I can understand the Labour Party. The Labour Party have never had any values, and they will always throw things away for governance, and that’s fine. That’s what we expect from the Labour Party: say one thing; do another. But the Green Party, in my time in Parliament, have always said they’re principled, and now they’re in Government—how many years has it been for them in Opposition? The one time they’re in Government, do you think they would give away those principled values that they always said were bigger than anyone else’s in this House? And they have. They have thrown those principles away. So there is an opportunity—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to follow on from the very valuable point that was made by my colleague, because, look, we do understand that an MMP environment does involve compromise. But there is a difference between compromise and a sell out. What this amendment provides for the Green Party is—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. On several occasions, this particular member has used what I believe to be unparliamentary language: “sell out”, “giving away of values”—a whole raft of things. Previously, the speaker—[Interruption] I thought points of order were heard in silence. I thought points of order were heard in silence is the first thing, but, Mr Chair, those are unparliamentary terms that they are being accused of from that member consistently.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t need any more help, thanks. The member is right that points of order are in silence. I apologise to the member; I was taking some advice on that. This is a robust debate. I’ve been listening very carefully to the contributions. So far, I’m happy that it’s within the robustness of the debate and that the committee shouldn’t have cause to take offence, but, as I say, it is robust and members ought to be careful. I should’ve said at the beginning, before I asked Dr Smith to take the call, that if there are any new arguments for the new clause 3A, they should come out very shortly.

I have not previously mentioned this important issue, and that is that coalition Governments require compromise. My problem with the bill without this amendment is there is no compromise. Winston has just got—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s the Rt Hon Winston Peters, thank you.

The Rt Hon Winston—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very reluctant—I do apologise to the member, but at the time you’ve taken the point of order, the clock hasn’t resumed, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh!

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I understand the frustration of the Chair, but fair is fair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m on my feet now. It’s a really serious matter to interrupt another member while they are speaking, especially for something as trivial as the time on the clock. The Chair is the sole judge of how long members have to go in their speeches, and the member ought to think really carefully about interrupting another member in their speech for such a matter.

The point I wish to make in support of new clause 3A is that this is a coalition Government. We accept there needs to be some compromise, but, as I say again, this bill does not represent a compromise; it represents a sell out. And I do think it’s important to put on the record what parties have said about these sorts of law, because the Green Party has said, on record, that it is the most obnoxious, Draconian, anti-democratic law ever. When a party says those sorts of things about a policy and then comes into the Parliament and votes for it, they should not be surprised that people are gulping, that people are choking on their Kornies, and that people are asking questions about principles, because it is, in my history in this Parliament, one of the worst U-turns, one of the greatest flip-flops, that I’ve ever seen.

Now, what this amendment does is it allows the Green Party to recover a tiny little bit of mana—a tiny little thing to be able to say to their supporters, “Yes, the Rt Hon Winston Peters got 99.9 percent of his way, but we stopped this being a permanent part of New Zealand’s electoral law. We protected those basic principles of our liberal democracy, not for now but at least for our grandkids.” That is why I say this amendment is important. I say it because it does provide for at least a little bit of compromise. And I say it’s interesting: both the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party previously voted for the 2001, identical bill with this very provision in it. I am yet to hear a contribution from the Minister, or any Labour member, as to why it was OK to have a sunset clause in the 2001 bill, but in the 2018 bill it’s not.

Let’s be honest: the level of MPs changing parties in the last five Parliaments has been negligible. In the last decade, there has been only one. That was Brendan Horan, and he was desperate to stay in the House. So you could run an argument that was this: actually, there is a more important case today for a sunset clause than there was in 2001. That would be a logical argument. You could argue that in 2001, there were more people—particularly in that first Parliament—that switched parties under MMP, and so, as such, it was a stronger argument. If you can agree to a sunset clause in 2001, why not in 2018 when, quite frankly, every political commentator today says that the issue of changing political parties has been a complete non-event in the last six parliaments?

That brings me to my very last point. The Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, says that we have to pass this bill because this Government deeply believes that the integrity of proportional representation must be maintained, but I say bunkum. I say that if this bill changed the 5 percent rule, if this bill changed the by-election rule, if this bill changed the law in respect of the six-month rule where an MP can resign—because all of those three measures have resulted in a far greater distortion of the proportionality of Parliament. So it is bunkum. The only reason we have this provision is that it is the weak glue that’s holding this Government together. That’s why it’s here. It’s about power; it’s not about principle. And if it’s about power and not about principle, let’s at least time-limit it to the term of this shabby Government.

I move, That the question be now put.